Skip to main content

Full text of "Effect of soil types upon growth and variation in oats"

See other formats


OF THE 



UNIVERSITY 
OF ILLINOIS 

1918 
£88 



EFFECT OF SOIL TYPES UPON GROWTH AND 
VARIATION IN OATS 



BY 

EARL JEROME GRIMES 



THESIS 

FOR THE 

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE 

IN 

AGRICULTURE 



COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
19 18 



V3\8 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



J.ime...l 



191. .8.. 



THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY 

E.axl . . .J. ex.pw.e ..fir ime.s 

entitled Ef.f.e.o.t...fif....ao.il....,.T.ype8...Up.Qn...Gx.o.w.tii...aiil..; Variat.i.on...in...Oa.ta. 



IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

degree of B.ac,h.e.X.Qr....of . .S,aie.nc.e...ln...Agxi.Gultuxs 




Instructor in Charge 



Approved : V 




HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF Agr.anomy. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http ://arch i ve . org/detai Is/ef f ectof soi Ity peOOg ri m 



Foreword 



In fairness to the writer of this thesis it would seem ap- 
propriate that the following word of explanation be attached. 

Mr. Grimes was called suddenly and somewhat unexpectedly into 
military service while in the midst of taking the final data for this 



large portion of the data as planned, but another considerable por- 
tion had to be abandoned. On the whole, however, the material seemed 
ample in quantity, and sufficiently complete in form to be acceptable 
as a thesis and thus it is presented in form that would otherwise 
have been more completely finished. Under normal circumstances more 
data including a very interesting comparison of the root development, 
would have been given, the results in general would have been more 
completely digested, the computations would have been more thoroly 
checked with "Probable Errors" included, the literary style would 
probably have been improved, and the thesis as a whole would have 
presented a more finished aspect. 



study. By most strenous effort he succeded in getting together a 




Professor of Plant Breeding. 



r 




Index 



Page 

Foreword 
Index 



Introduction 1 

Review of Recent Literature 1 

Experimental Methods 7 

Characters Studied 9 

Data 10 

Rate of germination 10 

Length of coleoptile 11 

Height of plant--a.t. AifSex&flX. p.er.ipA 9 . 14 

Total height of plant -. X.1jmCL 39 

Average length of panicle 33 

dumber of spikelets 35 

Total yield per plant -grain 38 

Total yield per plant-straw 41 

Rate of growth 44 

Variation in flowering period 45 

Number of culms or stools 46 

Tendency to lodge 46 

Smut resistance cr susceptibility 46 

Graphs 4? 

Conclusions 53 

Bibliography 54 



EFFECT OF SOIL TYPES UPON GROWTH AND VARIATION 

IN OATS. 

Introduction. 

It has long been contended by various investigators that soils 
and climate are the main causes of environmental variations among 
plants. But it is not yet definitely known whether differences in 
amount of plant food or other soil conditions produce important per- 
manent changes in habit; that is, mutations. 

Of the two factors, climate seems to be the more effective in 
producing variations in physical structure as well as chemical com- 
position of the plant. This matter has received considerable at- 
tention by investigators especially in connection with the protein 
content in wheat. The study of the effect of environment upon the 
morphology and anatomy of plants has received relatively little at- 
tention. It perhaps more properly belongs to the realm of the ecolo- 
gist but the problem is so closely related to plant breeding as to 
be practically inseparable. 

Thomas Andrew Knight was among the first to notice the effect 
of nutrition upon variability and he held that it is all important. 
Darwin mentioned that an excess of food induces variability. DeVries 
maintains that nutrition is at the bottom of all individual varia- 
bility. Following is a brief resume of some of the more important of 
the modern investigations bearing upon this problem. 

Review of More Recent Literature 

In a Cornell bulletin issued in 1911 by Doctor K. H. Love'^he 
author takes up the effect of nutrition on variation. This is a 
study of the effect or extent to which fluctuating variability is in- 
fluenced by environmental factors. The plants used were 3 genera- 



tions of peas, 3 varieties of buckwheat, and corn. Only the pea and 
buckwheat data are conclusive. Three soils were used "sand," "or- 
dinary garden soil" without treatment, and some soil fertilized 
heavily with farm manure. Analyses were made of the soils. Pure 
line 3eeds were not used. The second generations were grown in pots 
in greenhouses. Such characters were studied as height of plant, 
number of internodes and number of branches. The conclusions are 
that,- (1) means are increased as the fertility of the soil increases 
(3) standard deviation is greater on richer soils, (3) the coef- 
ficients of variability were effected differently for different 
characters, (in about half the characters studied the coefficient of 
variability was increased, while in the other half it decreased^ (4) 
coefficients of correlation are in general decreased as food supply 
is increased. Thus the author concludes that there is greater 
degree of variation (30 out of 34 cases) and less correlation on 
poor soil. 



In 1914 Love and Leighty published another paper from Cornell 
University, "Variation and Correlations in Oats", in which studies 
were made showing the effect of seasonal changes on biometrical con- 
stants. The crops were grown under field conditions and represent 
diverse environmental conditions. The conclusions are as follows: 
(1) Conditions that result in reduction of plant yield also results 
in reduction of height, number of kernels, number of culms, but in- 
crease in size of kernels. (2) Variability decreases with decrease 
in means. (3) High and positive correlation exists between average 
height of plant and, (a) total and average yield, (b) total and aver- 
age number of kernels produced, (c) average number of spikelets per 
culm, etc. There are many other fluctuating correlations that run 
from high to low according to conditions. 




A further paper by Leighty</eo<iin£ \Afitit Variation and Correlation 
of flats takes up a study of the effect of differences in environ- 
ment and varieties, and methods in the U3e of ttfometr ical constants. 
The first part compares the biometrical constants of the oat plant 
and culms of the same plant. The author concludes that for sta- 
tistical work practically the same means and correlation coeffi- 
cients will be obtained whether the entire plant is used as the 
units or culms of same plant. The second division is a biometrical 
comparison of varieties of oats. The greatest variability in all 
characters is found in the Welcome Variety. The average number of 
kernels per spikelet is greatest in GO-day oats. The third division 
is a similar comparison for oats grown in hills. The least differ- 
ences occur in the means in average height of plants, and average 
weight of kernels per plant. The fourth part deals with different 
degrees of crowding. Variability decreases with increase in crowd- 
ing / for yield, number of kernels, number of spikelet s, and breaking- 
strength of straw but for height the least variability occurs where 
crowding is least. Crowding tends to cause a greater correlation 
coefficient. 

fa) 

C. H. Myers, also working at Cornell, published a paper en- 
titled "Effect of Fertility Upon Variation and Correlation in Wheat." 
Myers follows up much the same plan as Love in his study mentioned 
above using wheat of the Danson's Golden Chaff variety as the plant 
for observation. He concludes with apology that (1) all correlations 
ar^ greatest upon the poorest soil, (3) increased fertility tends to 
decrease variability, as the Standard Deviation and Coefficient 
of Variability is greater upon the poorer soil. There is 



4. 

absolute relation between weight of straw and weight of grain. This 

data is not in accordance with that reported by Love. 

Another investigation along this line carried out at Cornell 

is that reported by E. P. Humbert who studied variability, both 

natural and induced in Rial ana noct if lora . This author found that,- 

"under the conditions maintained during this experiment, increase in 

food supply has decreased rather than increased variability. ■ 
ft) 

De Tries m his Mutation Theory states that~"there is much 
evidence to show that individual variations are occasioned by ex- 
ternal influences. My experiments lead me to the conclusion that 
nutritional modifications and ordinary variations are one and the 
same thing. Nutrition in the widest sense - the conditions of life 

one might almost say-is at the bottom of all individual variability. 

(ft) 

Davenport and Rietz made a statistical study of variation of 
the corn grown on experiment plots at Urbana which receive different 
chemical treatment and thus representing different degrees of fer- 
tility. They conclude that (1) the type of ear is directly affected 
by fertility so far as length , circumference, and freight are con- 
cerned but a&e not as to number of rows, (3) variability is slight- 
ly less on fertile land than on lands giving lower yields. 

m 

Harris made a study of the "Ratio of Top3 to Roots in Plants", 
published in the .Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. Wheat 
plants were raised in 4-gallon jars containing clay loam soil. There 
were three different fertilizer treatments each with two different 
amounts of moisture. The results 3how,,~(l) the proportion of roots 
is greater when the plant is young than after it gets older, (2) 
the roots developed in greater proportion with the low than with 
high moisture, (3) fertilizers added to the soil reduced the rela- 
tive root growth of the wheat. 



In a 3tudy of the variation of asters, Dr. G. H. Shull remarks, 
"not all individuals are alike sensitive to changed conditions, some 
being more, some less effected by a given amount of change; so that 
while many individuals respond to the less favorable conditions by 
the production of head3 with smaller number of parts, there is still 
a considerable number of conservative individuals which are little 
or not at all affected. " 

In 1911 George Bouyoucos published a report in Vol. 3 of the 
American Society of Agronomy on "Transpiration of Wheat Seedlings 
as affected by Soils, by Solutions of Different Strengths, Densities 
and by Various Chemical Compounds. " The author studied in part the 
influence of different size of soil particles upon the plant growth. 
It is said that other things being equal, the plants will make a 
greater growth in the presence of finer particles than in the coarser 
ones. This is attributed to the fact that root hair 3 come in more 
intimate contact and in greater area in the former than in the latter 
and since the density of solution is greater around each particle, 
due to absorption or condensation, the root hairs come in contact 
with more plant food in the finer particles than in the coarser, and 
consequently the plants can make a greater growth. His results show 
that with the same percentage of moisture, the coarser size of sand 
produced more dry matter than the 3and of the finer particles, while 
in all the other different percentages of moisture content, both with 
the sand and soil, the reverse was true, the finer particles produc- 
ing more growth than the coarser ones. 

Another series of experiments were carried on by Le Clerc and 
Yoder to study the environmental influences particularly of 30il and 
climatic conditions upon physical and chemical composition of grain 
as affecting moisture, flint iness, weight of bushel, protein, gluten, 



nitrogen, PgOs.and Ash contents. Blocks of soil 5 feet square and 
3 feet deep were transported from California, Kansas, and Maryland 
to each locality interchangeably, and planted ^together with check 
plots, with Turkey Red wheat. The results led to the conclusion that 
environment rather than what has usually been termed heredity is the 
major factor in determing the physical and chemical characteristics 
of the wheat crop. Further it is the climatic and not the soil en- 
vironment which exercises the primary influence. Climate seems to 
effect size of grain and weight. "The grain grown on Maryland soil 
in each year from 1909-12 in California as well as that grown on the 
Maryland soil in Kansas in 1913 was decidedly lighter in weight than 
that grown in the 3ame locality on the other soils. This would seem 
to indicate that some soils play an important part in influencing 
the size of the grain." Many of the organic and inorganic con- 
stituents undergo great variations, such a3 nitrogen and protein, 
ash, and ?2^5 ^ n Ash. Those undergoing but little variation are fat, 
fiber, pentosans and sugars. Some showing more variation are KgO in 
ash, and gliadin. The protein was greatest in Kansas. The authors 
suggest the question "Is there in the physical, chemical, biological 
characteristics of the soil a real difference which at first exerts 
a determing influence on the composition of the crop but which may be 
obliterated in the coarse of a year or two after putting the soil 
down in different locality?" Nothing is given regarding the physical 
or chemical properties of the soii3 and the plots are very small. 

Soule and i/anatter working at the Tennessee Experiment Station 
issued a bulletin on the "Influence of Climate and Soil on Composi- 
tion and Milling Qualities of Wheat" in which these authors come to 
the conclusions that -(1) The season has marked influence on protein 
content, (3) A rich soil or use of large quantities of commercial 



7. 

fertilizer c£ farmyard manure does not seem to increase the protein 

content of wheat to an appreciable extent. 

Thatcher and Amy In a paper on the "Effect of Different Rota- 

i\ 

tion systems and of Fertilizers on Protein Content of Wheat^make the 
following statement. "The results presented show a definite relation 
between the protein content of the oat grain and fertilizer treatment 
The plot3 receiving fertilizers which contain Nitrogen invariably 
produce grain having higher protein content than that from plots 
which receive any other treatment. " The highest average wa3 given 
by the Naltfo^ plots, KgO plots were lower than checks.. Potassium 
had no appreciable effect on protein content. 

Experimental Methods 

For the purpose of investigating this problem further it was 
decided to make a study of the variation in some suitable crop plant 
grown on different sorts of soils under controlled conditions. Three 
soil classes were chosen for this study, Black Clay Loam, Brown Fine 
Sandy Loam, and Gray Silt Loam. Samples were taken to a depth of 
seven inches from about half acre areas and each sample was thoroly 
mixed to secure uniformity. Care was taken to get representative 
samples both as to physical and chemical qualities of the respective 
types. The soils are all of glacial or loessial origin from Cham- 
paign County, Illinois. The Black Clay Loam and the Brown Fine Sandy 
Loam are prairie soils while the Gray Silt Loam is a timber soil. 
The productive ability under field conditions stand in the order, 1st 
Black Clay Loam, 3nd, Brown Fine Sandy Loam and last, Gray Silt Loam. 
The Black Clay Loam is a very heavy soil becoming very hard on dry- 
ing. It has a high organic matter content. The Brown Fine Sandy 



8. 

Loam is a very friable loam with a medium organic content. The Gray 
Silt Loam is very low in organic matter, of a floury feel and becomes 
comprest when dry. 

Of course it is true that in this experiment the influence of 
the substratum or subsoil is absent, but it is thot that this need 
not be considered a serious objection especially with such a shallow 
rooted plant as the oat. 

A pure line oats of the 60-day variety produced on the Plant 

Breeding plots of the University was used y taking a random sample of 

seed from this stock. The seeds were planted at a uniform depth of 

3/4 inch in common 4- inch earthen pots, one in a pot. The oat3 were 

planted November 23. Watering was done with an ordinary florist's 

sprinkler, the attempt being made to keep each soil at its optimum 

o o 

moisture content. The temperature was kept at from 50 to 70 F. 
which has been found favorable for oats in greenhouse culture. The 
pots were arranged so that the series were set in alternate rows on 
three different benches in order to insure as nearly as possible 
identical conditions for the different soils. There may have been a 
little unavoidable difference in light intensity. 

The writer appreciates the fact that in a study of this kind 
there are many and complex interacting factors in plant growth which 
are bound to influence variation and thus affect the bioraetrical 
constants. Many of these factors are not only beyond control under 
any ordinary conditions, but are even not understood by the physiolo- 
gist. Thus in the present investigations, while the attempt wa3 made 
to insure comparable conditions thruout the experiments, it is recog- 
nized that probably many disturbances have crept in tending to ob- 
scure the exact truth, but considerable confidence is based upon the 
rather liberal number of individuals used in the hope that some of 



9.. 

these uncontrollable errors may be in part compensating. 

Characters Studied. 
The list below give the characters observed and the tabulated 
data of the results follow. 

1. Rate of germination. 

2. Length of coleoptile. 

3. Height of plant (ba3e to tip of la3t leaf) taken at definite 
intervals. 

4. Total height of plant (from base, to base of apical spikelet). 

5. Average length of panicle (from base of panicle to base of apic 
spikelet) . 

6. Number of 3pikelets . 

7. Total yield per plant-grain. 

8. Total yield per plant-straw. 

9. Rate of growth. 

10. Variation in flowering period. 

11. Number of culms or stools. 

12. Tendency to lodge. 

13. Smut resistance oT susceptibility. 



Rate of Germination 

Sprouts appearing after 6 and 7 days expressed in 

percentage . 

i i t 

Soil Type • 6 days ■ 7 days ' 
r + T 

Black Clay Loam ' 49 % • 45.5 % • 
r t t 

BrQisn_Eius,SaQdy_LQami_— 33^5_°i 1 £5_# 1 

i i t 

Sr§Y_Silt_Loam % • 69_$ » 



I 

I 

I 



11. 



Height of Coleoptile aox>ve Ground{mj|(i'metcrf 
Black Clay Loam. 



3 3 



Class 1 


F • 


D 1 


D 


» D F 




. _ _l 






_ 1 _ 


i 

3 • 


i 

1 » 


-9 ' 


81 


1 

1 81 


4 « 


■ 








5 • 


1 ' 


-7 < 


49 


1 49 


6 » 


4 ' 


-6 1 


36 


1 144 


7 • 


11 » 


-5 1 


35 


1 375 


8 • 


11 ' 


-4 ' 


16 


• 176 


9 t 


30 » 


-3 1 


9 


' 180 


10 ■ 


38 » 


-3 1 


4 


' 80 


11 ' 


34 • 


-1 ' 


1 


' 34 


13 • 


38 1 


• 





» 


13 i 


33 • 


1 ' 


1 


• 33 


14 • 


33 ' 


3 « 


4 


• 91 


15 » 


30 • 


3 ' 


9 


• 180 


16 » 


14 » 


4 ' 


16 


• 334 


17 » 


8 1 


5 • 


35 


» 300 


18 ' 


3 • 


6 « 


36 


• 73 


19 ' 


1 • 










331 i 






•1809 



Mean =13. 
Ercperical Mode =13 
Standard Deviation =3.06 
Coefficient Variability=35. 5 



Height of Cole op tile above Ground(Mi fJuneferj 
Brown Sandy Loan: 



2 3 

Clas3 • F 1 D 1 D 1 D F 

4 1 X 1 



3 


• 2 


'-7.4 


'54.76 


109.52 ' 


4 


• 3 


i-6.4 


'40.96' 


122.88 » 


5 


• 8 


t-5. 4 


•29.16' 


233.28 ' 


6 


« 13 


•-4.4 


•IS. 36' 


'251.68 • 


7 


• 13 


'-3.4 


'11.56' 


150.28 ' 


8 


« 18 


'-2.4 


' 5.76' 


103.68 • 


9 


• 15 


'-1.4 


• 1.96' 


29.40 • 


10 


< 25 


• - .4 


' .16' 


4.00 ' 


11 


• 20 


' 1.4 


» 1.96' 


39.20 t 


12 


t 26 


• 3.4 


• 5.76' 


149.76 i 


13 


' 35 


• 3.4 


•11.56" 


612.36 t 


14 


' 19 


« 4.4 


•19. 36' 


367.84 ' 


15 


« 21 


' 5.4 


•29.16« 


612.36 • 


16 


• 6 


• 6.4 


•40.96' 


245.76 » 


17 


« 3 


• 7.4 


•54. 76' 


164.28 « 


18 


« 4 


' 8.4 


•70.56' 


282.34 » 




i 235 






3478. 52» 



Mean =10.4 
Emperical Mole =12 
Standard Deviation = 3.93 

Coefficient Variability =36.8 



13. 



Height of Coleoptile above Ground (Millimeters) 
Gray Silt Loam. 



Cla83 


t F 1 


D 


3 

1 D 


2 

' D F ' 


4 


. 4 t 


-6,5 


•42. 25 


'169.00 » 


5 


i 5 1 


-5. 5 


'30.35 


'151.25 ' 


6 


• 10 ' 


-4. 5 


'30. 25 


'200.25 ' 


7 


• 20 • 


-3, 5 


•13. 35 


'245.00 • 


8 


« 24 ■ 


p R 


' 6.35 


•150.00 i 


9 


i 17 i 


-1.5 


• 3.35 


» 38.25 • 


10 


• 35 ' 


-0. 5 


• .35 


i 6. 25 ' 


11 


i 36 • 


1.5 


• 3* 2o 


• 81.00 ' 


12 


' 37 ' 


3.5 


• 6. 35 


'231.25 « 


13 


• 18 • 


3. 5 


•12. 25 


'230.50 » 


14 


' 20 


4. 5 


' 20. 25 


•405.00 • 


15 


i 13 • 


5.5 


'30.25 


•393.25 ' 


16 


• 5 • 


6.5 


' 42. 25 


'211.25 ' 


17 


' 1 • 


7.5 


' 56. 25 


» 56.25 ' 




• 335 ' 






£558.50 ' 



Mean =10.5 
Emperical Mode =12 
Standard Deviation =3.29 
Coefficient of Var iability=31. 4 



Height of Plant ( cent imeter s) 
First Period- 20 Days 
Black Clay Loam 



Class 1 


F 


• D 


• D 


' D F 

.JL 


7.5 • 


5 


• -3.07 


' 9.42 


• 47.10 


8.0 » 


5 


»U3. 57 


1 6.60 


• 33,00 


8.5 » 


15 


•-2. 07 


' 4.28 


' 64.20 


9.0 » 


20 


'-1.57 


• 2.46 


• 4.92 


9.5 ■ 


24 


•-1.0? 


1 1.14 


• 27.36 


10.0 • 


23 


« - . 5? 


' . 32 


• 7 . 36 


10.5 1 


31 


•- .07 


• .00 


• .00 


11.0 • 


43 


« .43 


■ .18 


1 7.74 


11.5 » 


24 


» .93 


• .86 


• 20.64 


12.0 » 


19 


• 1.43 


« 2.04 


• 38.76 


12.5 » 


12 


1 1.93 


• 3.72 


• 44.64 


13.0 ' 


8 


• 2.43 


• 5.90 


• 47.20 


13.5 ■ 


5 


• 2.93 


•14. 65 


' 73.25 


14.0 • 


2 


» 3.43 


•11.76 


• 23.52 




236 






•439.69 



Mean 10^57 
Emperical Mode 11 
Standard Deviation 1.36 
Coefficient of Variability 12.86 



I 

I 
I 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
First Per iod-20 -Days 
Brown Fine Sandy Loam 











2 


2 


Class 


1 F 




D 1 


D 


* D F 














6.5 


' 1 


1-3. 


96' 


15.6816 


» 15.68 


7.0 


t * 

y 


•-3. 


46' 


11.9716 


' 35.91 


7.5 


i" 6 


•-2. 


96' 


8.7616 


' 52.56 


8.0 


' 8 


•-2. 


46' 


6.0516 


• 48.40 


8. 5 


• 14 




96» 


3. 8416 


' 53.76 


9.0 


» 21 


•-1. 


46' 


2.1316 


i 44.73 


9.5 


' 16 


"""" • 


96' 


.9216 


' 14.74 


10.0 


» 34 




46' 


.2116 


' 7.19 


10.5 


' 28 


• 


04' 


.0016 


» .04 


11.0 


« 3o 


• 


54' 


. 2916 


» 9.62 


11.5 


• 24 


« 1. 


04' 


1.0816 


• 25.92 


12.0 


» 14 


» 1. 


54' 


2. 3716 


' 33.18 


12.5 


' 18 




04' 


4.1616 


' 74.88 


13.0 


« 7 


• 2. 


54' 


6.4516 


' 45.15 


13. 5 


• 6 


: 3. 


04' 


9.2416 


' 55.44 




' 234 








•517.20 



Mean 10.46 

Emperical Mode ^.0 

1 48 

Standard Deviation 

14 14 

Coefficient cf Variability 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
First Period-30 Days 







Urav 


Sil 


t LoaiTi 

V U V www 












3 


3 


Class ' 


F 


• E 




• D 1 


D F 














6. o ' 


1 


<- 3. 


78 


' jl4. 28 ' 


14.38 


7.0 ' 


1 


3. 


38 


•10.75' 


10.75 


7.5 • 


7 


'- 3. 


78 


• 7.73' 


54.04 


8.0 ' 


6 


3. 


38 


• 5.19' 


31.14 


8. 5 • 


8 


• - 1. 


78 


• 3.16' 


35. 38 


S.O » 


19 


« -1. 


38 


' 1.63' 


30.97 


9. 5 ' 


38 




78 


» .60' 


16. 80 


10.0 ' 


33 


• 


38 


« .78i 


35. 74 


10.5 ■ 


39 


* 


33 


' .48' 


18.73 


11.0 « 


34 


• 


73 


« . 52' 


17. 68 


11.5 • 


34 


» 1. 


33 


' 1.48' 


35. 52 


13.0 ' 


17 


• 1. 


73 


' 3.96' 


50. 32 


13.5 ' 


14 


» 3. 


23 


' 4.93' 


69.03 


13.0 ■ 


3 


• 3. 


73 


' 7.40' 


33. 30 


13. 5 » 


1 


• 3. 


33 


•10.37' 


10. 37 




335 








433. 83 



Mean 

Emperical Mode 
Standard Deviation 
Coefficient of Variability 



10.28 
10.5 
1. 37 
13. 33 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Second Period - 48 Days 
Black Clay Loam 









2 


2 


Class 


i F 


• D » 


D 


' D F 


13 


• 6 


•-7.3 » 


53.29 


1 319.74 


14 


• 3 


•-6.3 • 


39. 69 


• 119.07 


15 


« 8 


•-5.3 • 


38.09 


» 224.72 


16 


• 14 


•-4.3 • 


22. 79 


• 319.06 


17 


• 18 


•-3.3 • 


10. 89 


' 196.02 


18 


» 17 


•-2.3 i 


5.29 


» 89.93 


19 


« 33 


•-1.3 » 


1.69 


' 55.77 


30 


• 24 


•- .3 • 


.09 


» 3.16 


21 


» 25 


• .7 i 


.49 


• 12.25 


22 


• 37 


• 1.7 t 


2.89 


• 78.03 


23 


• 27 


• 2.7 t 


7.39 


• 186.83 


24 


• 9 


• 3.7 • 


13.69 


1 123.21 


25 


• 9 


• 4.7 ■ 


22.09 


1 198.81 


26 


« 6 


• 5.7 • 


32.49 


• 194.94 


27 


« 3 


' 6.7 i 


44.89 


• 134.67 


28 


« 3 


• 7.7 « 


59. 29 


• 177.87 




• 232 






•2443.08 



Mean = 20.3 

Efi.perical Mode = 19 

Standard Deviation = 3.24 

Coefficient of Variability= 15.96 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Second Period - 48 Days 
brown Sandy Loam 









3 


3 


Class 


i f 


1 D ' 


D 


1 D F 


16 


i 

• 6 


» - 8 < 


64 


t 

• 384 


17 


' 6 


1 — 7 1 


49 


1 294 


18 


« 10 


' - 6 1 


36 


' 360 


19 


' 13 


» - 5 ' 


35 


' 300 


20 


• 11 


1-4 i 


16 


■ 176 


31 


• 30 


t - 3 ' 


9 


• 180 


33 


« 16 


'-3 ' 


4 


« 64 


33 


» 35 


»-l ' 


1 


• 25 


34 


• 31 


• < 





» 00 


35 


■ 27 


• 1 1 


1 


' 37 


36 


• 15 


1 3 • 


4 


' 60 


37 


• 34 


1 3 1 


9 


' 316 


28 


• 11 


i 4 i 


16 


• 176 


29 


• 10 


t 5 i 


25 


' 350 


30 


' 5 


« 6 « 


36 


« 180 


31 


« 6 


i 7 i 


49 


• 394 


33 


f 7 


« 8 ' 


64 


» 468 




« 333 






» 345.4 



Mean 24 . 

Smperical Mode 35 

Standard Deviation 3.85 

Coefficient of Variability 16.04 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Second Period - 48 Days 
Gray Silt Loam 









2 


2 


Class 1 


F 


| D 


1 D ' 


D F 


14 • 


5 


•-7.9 


« C2.41' 


312.05 


15 • 


7 
w 


U6.9 


« 47.61' 


142. 83 


16 ' 


6 


'-o. 9 


« 34.81' 


208. 86 


17 • 


10 


•-4.9 


« 24.01' 


240.01 


18 i 


16 


'-3.9 


• 15.21 


243.36 


19 ' 


22 


•-3.9 


' 8.411 


185.02 


20 1 


11 


•-1.9 


' 3.61' 


39.71 


21 ' 


33 


1 - o 


' .81 


36.73 


32 ■ 


28 


• .1 


' .01' 


.28 


23 ' 


26 


• 1.1 


• 1.31' 


31.46 


24 ' 


20 


• 2.1 


4.41' 


8.82 


25 « 


17 


• 3.1 


1 9 . 61 1 


163. 3? 


26 » 


18 


» 4.1 


» 16.81' 


302.58 


27 ' 


5 


« 5.1 


» 36.01' 


130.05 


28 ' 


6 


' 6.1 


• 37.21' 


223.26 


39 1 


4 


• 7.1 


• 50.41i 


220.16 


30 ' 


3 


' 8.1 


» 65.61' 


196.83 




233 






2675. 38 



Mean 21.9 
Emperical Mode 21 
Standard Deviation 3.38 
Coefficient of Variability 15.43 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Third Period - 7b Days 
Black Clay Loam 



2 3 



Jlass 1 


F 1 


D 


1 D 


1 D F 


. -1. 


1. 






_I 


20 • 


5 • 


-9 


• 81 


• 4.05 


21 » 


1 ' 


-8 


• 64 


1 .64 


32 • 


4 ' 


-7 


• 49 


• 1.96 


23 • 


9 ' 


-6 


1 36 


1 3.24 


34 ' 


8 * 


-5 


• 25 


» 2.00 


25 ' 


13 1 


-4 


» 16 


» 2.08 


36 • 


14 1 


-3 


' 9 


• 1.26 


37 « 


23 ' 


-3 


' 4 


« .92 


38 « 


22 » 


-1 


• 1 


' . 22 


39 » 


17 « 





• 


! 


30 • 


30 1 


1 


• 1 


• . 30 


31 ■ 


17 1 


<-> 
a 


• 4 


• . 68 


32 ' 


23 * 


3 


• 9 


' 1.98 


33 1 


14 ' 


4 


• 16 


• 2.24 


34 ■ 


4 • 


5 


• 25 


• 1.00 


35 ' 


8-' 


6 


• 3b 


• 2.88 


3b » 


4 • 


7 


» 49 


« 1.96 




215 • 






• 27 . 41 



Mean =28. 74 

Emperical Mode =30 

Standard Deviation =3.47 

Coefficient of Variability =12.07 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Third Period - 76 Days 
Brown Fine Sandy Loam 



2 2 



Clas3 


t f » 

.1 l 


D 


1 D 


' D F 


39 


• 16 ' 


-7 


' 49 


• 7.84 


30 


t 8 ' 


-6 1 


» 36 


• 2.88 


31 


• 13 » 


-5 1 


' 26 


» 3.25 


33 


• 17 ' 


-4 1 


16 


• 2.72 


33 


• 13 • 


-3 1 


9 


• 1.08 


34 


» 33 ' 


-2 1 


' 4 


• .92 


35 


• 36 « 


-1 1 


1 


» .26 


36 


« 13 ' 


< 





• C 


37 


' 29 1 


1 1 


1 


• . 29 


38 


• 23 ' 


3 » 


4 


• . 88 


39 


i 14 t 


3 ' 


9 


• 1.26 


40 


• 11 • 


4 « 


16 


' 1.76 


41 


; 11 • 


5 » 


25 


• 2.75 


43 


' 6 • 


6 • 


36 


• 2.16 


43 


f 4 ' 


7 » 


49 


• 1.96 


44 


6 » 


8 ' 


64 


• 3.84 




• 336 • 






• 33. 85 



Mean =35.67 

Emperical Mode =37 

Standard Deviation =3.80 

Coefficient of Variability =10.63 



I 



I 
I 

I 



I 
I 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Third Period - 76 Day3 
Gray Silt Loam 



Class 




D 


1 D 


1 D F 


25 


• 20' 


-9 


» 81 


• 16.30 


26 


• 6' 


-8 


• 64 


' 3.84 


27 


' 4' 


-7 1 


48 


» 1.96 


28 


' 12' 


-6 


» 36 


• 4. 32 


39 


« 16' 


-5 1 


35 


• 4.00 


30 


' 18» 


-4 1 


16 


• 3. 88 


31 


' 32' 


-3 1 


' 9 


• 1.98 


33 


• 17 » 


-2 1 


4 


• . 68 


33 


• 18' 


-1 < 


' 1 


• .18 


34 


• 37' 


' 





• 


35 


i 141 


1 < 


1 


• .14 


36 


' 18' 


2 ' 


4 


' .73 


37 


» 19' 


3 ' 


9 


• 1.7 


38 


' 8' 


4 ' 


16 


• 1.38 


39 


i 41 


5 « 


25 


• 1.00 


40 


« 16' 


6 1 


36 


' 5.76 




•239 • 






« 46.65 



lean =33.57 

Empsrical Mode =34 

Standard Deviation =3.63 

Coefficient of Variability =11.11 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Fourth Period - 104 Days 
Black Clay Loam 









3 


3 


Class 


1 F 1 


D 1 


D 


1 D F 1 












33 


t 3 » 


-15 ' 


235 


' 6.75 • 


35 


i 4 i 


-13 ■ 


144 


• 5.76 • 


38 


» 13 • 


- 9 » 


81 


•10.53 » 


41 


• 36 • 


- 6 » 


36 


f 13.96 • 


44 


• 58 • 


- 3 ' 


9 


• 5.22 t 


4? 


• 59 ' 


' 





» .59 ' 


50 


« 33 ' 


5 » 


9 


t 1.98 • 


DO 


• 36 • 


6 * 


36 


' 9.36 • 


5b 


' 13 ' 


9 • 


81 


'10.53 ' 


59 


t j » 


13 • 


144 


♦ 4.32 » 




t23? • 






•68.00 • 



Mean =46. 34 

Empericai Mode =47 
Standard Deviation =5.31 
Coefficient of Var iabiiity=ll. 34 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Fourth Period - 104 Days 
Brown Fine Sandy Loam 









2 


2 


Class 


i f 1 


D » 


D 1 


D F 




i _i 




1 




AO 




-15 » 


225 • 


13 50 


43 


i 7 ' 


-12 • 


144 1 


10.08 


^6 


' 28 ' 


- 9 • 


81 • 


33. 68 


49 


« 35 » 


- 6 • 


36 i 


9.00 


53 


• 35 ' 


- 3 ' 


9 » 


3.15 


55 


• 38 • 


• 


• 


.38 


58 


• 33 » 


3 t 


9 • 


2.97 


61 


• 30 • 


6 • 


36 • 


10.80 


64 


' 16 • 


9 • 


81 t 


14.58 


67 


• 7 • 


13 • 


144» 


10.08 


70 


i 4 i 


15 • 


225' 


9.00 




' 331 • 






106.32 


Mean 








= 54.75 


Emper 


ical Mode 






= 55 



Standard Deviation = 6.77 



Coefficient of Variability= 13.36 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Fourth Period - 104 Daya 
Gray Silt Loam 



?lass » 
._ i. 


F 1 
± 


D • 
2. 


2 

D 


2 

• D F 
_1 i 


35 ■ 


2 • 


-18 ' 


296 


• 5.92 1 


38 » 


10 ' 


-15 ' 


225 


'22.50 ' 


41 • 


18 ' 


-12 • 


144 


•25.92 « 


44 i 


23 » 


- 9 » 


81 


'18.63 ' 


47 ' 


25 » 


- 6 • 


36 


' 9.00 • 


50 « 


43 « 


-3 « 


9 


• 3.87 ' 


53 1 


42 1 


i 





• .42 « 


56 ■ 


37 ' 


3 i 


9 


• 2.43 t 


59 • 


25 1 


6 • 


36 


» 9.00 • 


62 ' 


13 » 


9 • 


81 


• 9.72 • 


65 • 


7 » 


12 « 


144 


• 9.98 ' 


88 ' 


2 « 


15 • 


225 


• 4.50 » 




336 ' 






•121. 89' 



Mean =51.34 

Emperical Mode =50 

Standard Deviation =6.99 

Coefficient of Variability =13.61 













26. 


Height 


of 


Plant ( 


centimeters) 




Fifth Period - 


132 Days 






Black Clay Loam 












2 


2 




'Class 1 


F 


• D 


• D 


1 D t' • 




I t 




l 








1 34 i 


3 


1 -18 


i 296 


f add * 

1 8. 88 * 




t m 

1 o? • 


3 


1 -15 


« 225 


'6.75 1 




' 40 • 


10 


' -12 


» 144 


'14.40 • 




■ 43 1 


16 


• - 9 


• 81 


■49.41 • 




• 46 • 


33 


» - 6 


1 36 


•11.88 ■ 




' 49 ' 


28 


• - 3 


1 9 


1 .27 1 




■ 52 • 


33 


• 


' 


« • 




• 55 • 


41 


' 3 


1 9 


• .27 • 




» 58 • 


22 


• 6 


• 36 


1 2^16 » 




» 61 ' 


24 




i cn 
' oi 


1 7.29 • 




' 64 • 


9 


• 12 


• 144 


•17.28 • 




• 5? ' 


8 


• 15 


• 225 


•18.00 • 




1 70 ' 


4 


' 18 


' 296 


•11.84 • 




• 73 1 


4 


• 21 


' 441 


•17.64 • 




1 76 • 




24 


• 576 


•11.52 ' 






240 






•177.59 • 




Mean 








= 53.07 




Emper ical 


Mode 




=55 




Standard 


Deviation 


= 8.55 




Coefficient of Var iability=16. 11 





Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Fifth Period - 133 Days 
Brown Fine Sandy Loam 



p 2 

Class • F 1 B ■ D J » D F 

i 1 l 1 

i i t i 



47 1 


10 ' 


-12 


' 144 


•14.40 


50 1 


18 ' 


-9 


' 81 


•14.58 


53 « 


23 » 


-6 1 


36 


• 6.28 


56 1 


55 1 


-3 < 


9 


• 3.15 


59 1 


39 , 


' 





• .39 


62 1 


52 


3 ' 


9 


• 2.88 


65 1 


21 • 


6 • 


36 


7.56 
*10.53 


b8 1 


13 ' 


9 ' 


81 


71 « 


12 1 


13 « 


144 


•17.28 


74 ' 


8 1 


15 ' 


223 


•16.00 


77 < 


10 • 


18 ' 


296 


•29.60 


80 ' 


6 • 


21 « 


441 


• 38. 46 


83 i 


3 • 


24 ' 


576 


•17.28 




230 » 






•172.39 



Mean =60.98 
Emperical Mode =59 
Standard Deviation =8.44 
Coefficient of variability =13. 84 



Height of Plant (centimeters) 
Fifth Period - 133 Days 
Gray Silt Loam 



3 3 

Class 1 F • D 1 D 1 D F 

X 1 A 2 



43 


• 15 


' -15 


1 335 


• 33.75 


46 


• 30 


! -13 


« 144 


1 38.80 


49 


• 23 


• _ Q 


• 81 


■ 17.83 


52 


» 17 


* - 6 


i 36 


• 6. 13 


55 


• 26 


• - 3 


• 9 


1 3. 34 


58 


• 23 


♦ 


« C 


1 


61 


» 29 


■ 3 


• 9 


* 3.61 


64 


« 21 


• 6 


» 36 


1 7. 56 


67 


• 34 


• 9 


• 81 


• 19.44 


70 


• 16 


• 13 


• 144 


« 33.04 


73 


• 10 


' 15 


■ 335 


• 33.50 


76 


l 6 


' 18 


« 324 


1 19.44 


79 


l 4 


' 31 


' 441 


» 17.64 


82 


« 3 


» 34 


' 576 


• 17.38 




1 336 






» 318. 34 



Mean =58. 81 

Emperical Mode =61 

Standard Deviation =9.63 

Coefficient of variability =16.35 



Total Height (centimeters) 
Black Clay Loam 



Class 1 F 
1 



D 1 
t 



DF 



D F 



31 


• 3 ' 


-31 


34 


• 4 


-18 


37 


• 4 ' 


-15 


40 


» 15 ' 


-13 


43 


i 14 i 


- 9 


46 


• 36 ' 


- 6 


49 


» 33 ' 


- 3 


53 


i 41 i 





55 


• 30 1 


3 


58 


■ 31 ' 


6 


61 


' 19 ' 


9 


64 


i 7 i 


13 


67 


' 6 ' 


15 


70 


» 5 ' 


18 


73 


» 3 ' 


31 


76 


» 3 « 
'335 ' 


34 



I _ 
I _ 



I _ 
I _ 
t _ 



63 

73 

60 

180 

136 

156 

99 


50 
136 
171 
84 
80 
90 
63 
48 
733 



441 

334 
335 
144 
81 
36 
9 

9 
36 
81 
144 
335 
334 
441 
576 



1333 
1396 
900 
3160 
1134 
936 
397 


180 
756 
1539 
1008 
1350 
1630 
1333 

S6_ 

15918 



Assumed Mean =53 

Correction =1.15 

True Mean =53.15 

Standard Deviation =8.41 

Coefficient Variability =16.13 





Total 


Height 


(centimeters) 






Brown Sandy Loam 














2 


2 


Class 






DF 


' D 1 


D F 


40 


1 

• 6 


1 

•-21 ( 


126 


■ A A 1 

* 441 1 


» 

2646 • 


43 


' 4 


»-18 1 


72 


1 324 ( 


1296 » 


46 


' 8 


»-15 1 


120 


• 225 1 


1800 ' 


49 


t 11 


J -12 • 


13«3 




1584 • 


52 


1 16 


_ M i 

w 


T /I 

144 


» 81 1 


1296 ' 


55 


• 13 


t G • 




1 36 ' 


468 » 


58 


• J>2 


i - 3 » 


96 


• 9 ■ 


288 « 


61 


t 34 


i • 





f r\ i 
* 1 


• 


64 


« 18 


i 3 • 


54 


l O 1 


162 « 


67 


• 12 


' 6 • 


72 


1 7fi I 

1 OD 1 


432 • 


70 


• 20 


» 9 • 


180 


i 81 1 


1620 • 


73 


• 9 


t 12 • 


108 


t 144 « 


1296 • 


76 


• 9 


t 15 ' 


135 


' 225 « 


2025 » 


79 


• 5 


' 18 • 


90 


• 324 1 


1620 • 


82 


' 4 


• 21 • 


84 


i 441 i 


1764 • 


85 


' 6 


t 24 • 


144 


» 576 ' 


3444 • 


88 


» 2 


• 27 » 


54 


• 729 ' 


1458 « 


91 


1 2 


t 30 ■ 


60 


' 900 • 


1800 • 




« 209 




981 




24991 ■ 



Assumed Mean =61 
Correction =1.02 
True Mean =62.02 
Standard Deviation =10.98 
Coefficient Variability =17.70 



Total Height (Centimeters) 
Gray Silt Loam 



3 2 



Class ' 


F 


1 D 


1 DF 1 


D 


1 D F 














i 

40 1 


7 


1 -21 


t i 

t _147 • 


441 


i 

1 30.87 


43 ' 


9 


' - 18 


« -162 ' 


324 


• 29.16 


46 » 


9 


1 -15 


1 -135 » 


225 


• 20.25 


49 • 


12 


'-12 


t _144 i 


144 


• 17.28 


o2 1 


19 


• — y 


— 1(1 ' 


Oil 


' ID. Ol? 


55 ' 


16 


' — 6 


' - 96 » 


36 


• 5.76 


58 ' 


28 


' — 3 


' - 84 • 


9 


• 2.52 


61 • 


20 


» 


» ' 





• 


64 » 


16 


» 3 


' 48 ' 


9 


• 1.44 


67 • 


16 


• 6 


1 96 • 


36 


' 5.76 


70 1 


15 


» 9 


• 135 ' 


81 


1 12.25 


73 ■ 


8 


» 12 


• 96 • 


144 


• 11.52 


76 • 


9 


' 15 


» 135 • 


225 


• 20.25 


79 » 


6 


' 18 


• 108 • 


324 


• 20.44 


82 t 


3 


> 21 


• 63 ' 


441 


' 13.23 


85 • 


6 


» 24 


' 144 • 


576 


• 34.56 


88 • 


5 


» 27 


« 135 • 


729 


• 36.45 


r 


204 




' 960 ' 




•283.23 



Assumed Lie an = 61 

Correction =.90 

True Mean = 60.90 

Standard Deviation = 11.76 

Coefficient Variability = 19.43 



Panicle Length (centimeters) 





Black 


Clay 


Loam 














3 


3 


Class' 


F 1 


D ' 


DF 1 


D 


1 D F 














• 

8 ' 


1 

12 » 


-8 • 


1 

-96 • 


64 


1 768» 


9 ' 


35 ' 


-7 • 


-175' 


49 


•1335' 


10 » 


35 1 


-6 ' 


-210 1 


36 


•1360 1 


11 • 


14 ' 


-5 ' 


-70 • 


35 


» 350* 


13 • 


19 ■ 


-4 ' 


-76 » 


16 


1 304' 


13 • 


16 » 


-3 ' 


-48 1 


9 


• X4 4 i 


14 1 


9 • 


-2 • 


-18 » 


4 


• 36* 


15 • 


7 » 


-1 ' 


-7 • 


1 


• 7» 


16 • 


11 » 


• 


» 





i 0* 


17 ' 


8 » 


1 • 


8 » 


1 


i 8« 


18 • 


12 1 


2 • 


34 « 


4 


• 48 ■ 


19 • 


9 « 


3 • 


37 • 


9 


■ 81* 


30 • 


7 • 


4 ' 


38 « 


16 


• 113' 


31 ' 


6 1 


5 • 


30 • 


35 


• 150 • 


33 ■ 


9 • 


6 « 


54 ■ 


36 


» 334' 


33 » 


2 ■ 


7 • 


14 • 


49 


• 98' 


34 • 


5 ' 


8 • 


40 1 


64 


• 330' 


35 » 


3 ■ 


9 1 


37 ' 


81 


» 243' 


26 ' 


4 . 1 


10 ». 


40 • 


100 


» 400' 




313 t 




"293~« 




•5188' 



Assumed Mean =16 

Correction =1.91 

True Mean =17.91 

Standard Deviation =5.39 

Coefficient Variability =39.53 



Panicle Length (centimeters) 
brown Sandy Loam 



Class 1 F • D 
1 i 



8 


» 1 
i 4 ( 


_p 


9 


t 7 5 


-8 


10 


t 6 


-7 


11 


• 18 


-6 


12 


t 14 5 


-5 


13 


i 20 ' 


-4 


14 


• 16 ' 


-3 


15 


t 12 ' 


-2 


lb 


• 8 « 


-1 


17 


i 11 • 





18 


t 8 « 


1 


19 


i 9 • 


2 


20 


t 12 • 


3 


21 


• 12 • 


4 


22 


t 8 i 


5 


23 


» 6 i 


b 


24 


i 9 « 


7 


25 


• 9 » 


8 


26 


i 3 ' 


9 


27 


t 8 i 


10 


28 


t 2 ' 


11 


29 


• 2 » 
t204 t 


12 



DF 


1 D 


1 D F 


-36 


• 81 


1 324 


-56 


t 64 


• A A C\ 

« 448 


-42 


t 49 


* 294 


-108 


1 36 


t 648 


-70 


1 25 


i 350 


-80 


1 lb 


1 320 


-48 


1 9 


i 144 


-24 


» 4 


» 48 


- 8 


1 1 


1 8 





' C 


• 


8 


' 1 


• 8 


18 


» 4 


' 36 


36 


• 9 


• 108 


48 


' 16 


» 192 


40 


t 26 


• 200 


36 


• 36 


' 216 


63 


• 49 


« 441 


72 


» 64 


• 576 


27 


• 81 


• 243 


80 


•100 


• 800 


22 


•121 


1 242 


24 


•144 


» 288 


474 




»5934 



Assumed Mean =17 

Correction =-.01 

True Mean =16.99 

Standard Deviation =5. 38 

Coefficient variability =30.95 



Panicle Length { centimeter 8) 
Gray Silt Loam 



3 3 



Class 1 


F 


' D 1 


DF 


' D 


1 D F 














1 

9 • 


6 


» -9 1 


-54 1 


1 QT 


' 4bb 


10 1 


7 


i -8 ' 


-5b 


1 ft/t 

b4 


1 A ft O 

• 4b o 


11 ' 


33 


ft ^ 1 


T £T 

-Ibl 


' 4b 


ITT 


"i ft 

13 1 


30 


* -b 


I T OA 1 


ob 


i r? OA 


t r? ft 

13 1 


lb 


• — 5 1 


- (O 


oD 


t 

' O ( o 


14 ' 


t f\ 
10 


t A 1 


A/"T 1 

— 4U 


J. D 


1 T. ftO 

1 ibU 


T C ft 

15 1 


ri 
( 


1 *Z 1 

1 — O 1 




Q 

y 


i ft'* 

* DO 


1 £2 f 

lb ' 


Q 
O 


1 O 1 


1 ft 1 

-lo 




OCj 


17 ' 


5 


1 1 1 
* —1 1 


— 1 


T 
X 


1 


lo ' 


o 






u 


u 


ly 1 


6 


t i i 


O ' 


X 


t ft 


20 • 


13 


■ 3 1 


36 ' 


4 


' 53 


31 • 


13 


• 3 « 


39 ' 


9 


» 11? 


23 ' 


8 


i 4 i 


33 1 


lb 


• 138 


33 1 


8 


» 5 1 


40 1 


1 35 


' 300 


34 • 


11 


» b « 


bb 1 


36 


1 396 


25 ' 


6 


i 7 i 


43 ' 


49 


« 394 


36 • • 


8 


t 8 « 


b4 « 


64 


1 673 


37 1 


3 


f 9 ' 


37 ' 


81 


• 343 


38 • 


4 


• 10 • 


40 ' 


100 


» 400 


39 • 


3 


t 11 i 


33 ' 


131 


» 363 


30 • 


3 


» 13 • 


34 « 


144 


' 388 


31 • 


5 


• 13 ' 


b5 • 


169 


• 845 




193 




474 ' 




•6440 



Assumed Mean =18 
Correction =.67 
True Mean =17. 33 

Standard Deviation =5.53 
Coefficient Variability=31. 89 



wumber of Spikelets 
Black Clay Loam 



• Class • F • D 
1 x J. — 



DF 



2 



8 


1 9 


•-30 1 


-180 » 


400 ' 


3600 


13 


« 41 


•-15 


1 -615 ' 


225 1 


9325 


18 


» 41 


•-10 1 


1 -410 1 


100 ' 


4100 


23 


• 33 


•- 5 1 


-165 ' 


35 » 


825 


38 


• 35 


• 1 


• 


1 





33 


1 34 


• 5 1 


130 » 


25' 


600 


38 


1 20 


« 10 1 


200 1 


100 1 


2000 


43 


' 10 


' 15 1 


150 • 


225 ' 


2250 


48 


• 4 


' 20 1 


• 80 • 


400 ' 


1600 




'30? 


» 50 ' 


550 • 


t 


24200 



D 2 F 



Aseumed Mean = 38 

True Mean =24 
Correction = -4 

Standard Deviation = 10.03 
Coefficient Variability= 41.8 



I 



I 

I t 

1 

I I 

I 



Number of Spikelets. 







Brown 


Sandy 


Loam. 




Class 1 


F 


1 D 


1 DF 


i «2 
D 


D F 


8 1 


1 


1 

• -35 


1 - 35 


' 1225 


1 1325 


13 1 


6 


» -30 


1 -180 


• 900 


• 5400 


18 1 


19 


• -24 


1 -456 


1 576 


1 10S44 


33 1 


14 


1 _ oo 


-406 


1 841 


• 11744 


38 ' 


22 


• -21 1 


-462 


' 441 


' 9702 


33 1 


25 


1 -18 


1 -450 


» 324 


• 8100 


38- ' 


22 


1 -21 


1 -462 


' 441 


• 9702 


43 1 


18 


1 1 




1 




48 1 


27 


1 16 


432 


1 256 


1 6912 


53 1 


11 


• 32 1 


352 


' 1024 


♦ 11264 


58 1 


12 


' 31 1 


372 


♦ 961 


• 11532 


63 1 


4 


• 39 1 


156 


• 1521 


1 6084 


68 1 


7 


• 36 1 


252 


' 1296 


• 9072 


73 1 


2 


i 41 i 


82 


' 1681 


1 3362 


78 ' 


5 


1 38 1 


190 


■ 1444 


• 7220 


83 ' 


1 


1 42 1 


43 


» 1764 


1 1764 


88 ' 


1 


' 42 1 


42 


1 1764 


1 1734 




197 




1820" 




•115861 



Assumed Mean = 43.00 

Correction = -3.20 

True Mean = 39. 80 

Standard Deviation = 24.25 

Coefficient Variation= 60.92 



I 



I 

I 

I 



dumber of Spikelet9 
Gray Silt Loam 



oxass 


r 


a 




D 


■ <-> . 
D F 


6 


■ 


in 


' ftn 


i Qnn 


i i onn i 

X OUU ' 


11 ' 
X o 


xo 


— CD 


1 IOC 


' 0<dO 


OX 


X o 


PA • 


on 


• Aftn 


I APP 








-ID 


— **oo 


■ OCj<J 




28 1 


26 • 


-10 


' -260 


• 100 


1 2600 1 


33 1 


19 1 


- 5 


- 95 


' 35 


» 475' 


38 1 


20 1 





1 


' 


• o« 


43 * 


19 1 


5 


• 95 


• 25 


• 475' 


48 ' 


30 1 


10 


200 


• 100 


» 2000 1 




o 


15 


' 75 




• Tl PR! 
X X (ZsJ 


Oo 


8 1 


20 


1 160 


i aho 


i ipnn i 


DO 


6 1 


25 


• 150 




' ^7 ^n i 


OO 


2 1 


30 


• 60 


i onn 


i i pnn • 


73 1 


7 1 


35 


1 245 


'1225 


1 8575 1 


78 1 


3 1 


46 


1 80 


•1600 


• 3200 ' 


83 ■ 


1 ' 


45 


1 45 


.'2025 


■ 2025* 




203 « 




1 1110 


i 


•26150 • 




Assumed 


Mean 




38 




Correction 






2.68 




True Mean 






35. 32 




Standard Deviation 




16.71 




Coefficient 


Var iability= 


47.3 



I I 

I 

I 

t 



Weight of Grain 
(Dry Weight Grams) 
Black Clay Loam 



DF 



2 

D 1 
t 



8 
D F 



t 



Class 



.06 
.11 
.16 
.31 
.36 
.31 
. 36 
.41 
.46 
.51 
. 56 
.61 



3 
6 
14 

34 

38 
36 
37 
23 
18 
9 

6 
2 



306 



3 5 
20 
15 
10 
5 

5 
10 
15 
30 
25 
30 



-75 
-130 
-310 
-340 
-140 


135 
330 
370 
180 
150 
60 



635 ' 
400 ' 
335 • 
100 ■ 

35 ' 
• 

35 ' 
100 ' 
335 1 
400 • 
635 • 
900 1 



18.75 
34.00 
30. 50 
34.00 

7.00 


6. 75 
23.00 
40.50 
36.00 
37. 50 
18.00 



272.00 



x l i l 

Assumed Mean =.31 
Correction = 00.68 

True Mean =.3168 
Standard Deviation =.1146 
Coefficient Var iabii ity=36. 9 



Weight of Grain 
(Dry Weight Grama) 
brown Sandy Loam 



Class 


1 F 


1 D 


1 DF 
! !. 


D2 


■ 


.16 


• 9 


' -35 


• -315 


1335 


• 11025 


.21 


' 5 


-30 


' -150 ' 


aoo 


1 4500 


.36 


' 7 


' -25 


1 -175 1 


635 


1 4375 


.31 


' 12 


1 -20 


1 -240 1 


400 


1 4800 


.36 


' 16 


1 -15 


1 -240 f 


335 


' 3600 


.41 


1 20 


1 -10 


1 -300 1 


100 


2000 


.46 


■ 16 


- 5 


1 - 80 1 


35 


1 400 


.51 


1 22 


' 


» 1 








.56 


1 12 


! 5 


1 60 ' 


35 


300 


.61 


1 14 


10 


1 140 ' 


100 


1400 


.66 


■ 10 


! 15 ' 


1 150 1 


235 


3350 


.71 


1 10 


20' 


200 ' 


400 1 


4000 


.76 


' 13 


• 35" 


225 1 


635 


• 8135 


.81 


' 5 


• 30" 


150 ' 


900 


4500 


. 86 1 


1 3 


1 35' 


105 i 


1335 1 


3675 


.91 


1 2 


1 40" 


80 


1600 1 


3300 


.96 1 


1 1 


45' 


45 


3© 25 « 


3025 


1.01 


1 1 


1 50" 


50 ; 


2500 1 


3500 


1.06 1 


2 


55' 


110 


3035 1 


6050 




180 




14.15 1 




68635 



Assumed Mean =.51 
Correction =.00083 
True Mean =. 5108 

Standard Deviation =11950 
Coefficient Variability* 38. 1 



Weight cf Grain 
(Dry Weight Grams) 
Gray Silt Loam 



Cla38 


F ' 


D 


1 DF 1 


n 2 
D 


1 n 2n 

D F 


~ — " 
. 08 ' 


2 ' 


-35 


- 70 


1335 


1 2450 


. 13 ' 


11 1 


— — 

-30 


' -330 


900 


1 9900 


. 18 1 


7 * 


-35 


' -175 1 


635 


1 4375 


.23 1 


11 1 


-30 


1 -230 ' 


400 


' 4400 


. 38 ' 


14 1 


-15 


' -310 1 


225 


' 3150 


. 33 ' 


19 1 


-10 


, -190 ' 


100 


1 1900 


.38 ' 


27 ' 


- o 


-135 1 


25 ' 


1 1675 


.43 1 


38 ' 





1 1 





1 


.48 1 


20 1 


5 


1 100 1 


25 


1 500 


.53 ' 


19 1 


10 


' 190 * 


100 1 


1900 


. 58 * 


16 ' 


15 


340 1 


2 £5 


3600 


.63 1 


11 1 


20 1 


220 1 


400 1 


1 4400 


.68 ' 


5 1 


35 1 


125 ; 


635 1 


3125 


.73 ' 


9 ' 


30 


370 


900 1 


8100 


.78 t 


4 ' 


35 1 


140 ' 


1225 1 


4900 


.83 1 


2 ' 


40 \ 


80 ' 


1600 1 


3300 




205' 




1365 ' 




57575 



Assumed Mean = .43 

Correction = .0017 

True Mean = .4317 

Standard Deviation = .1674 
Coefficient Variability= 38.7 



Weight of Straw 
(Dry Weight Grams) 
Black Clay Loam 











2 


2 


Class 


i F ' 


D 


• DF 


• D 


1 D F 












t 


. 51 


1 13 1 - 


. 35 


•-4. o3 


• . 1235 


'1. 5935 


. 58 


• 14 ' - 


. 38 


'-3. 32 


' . 0784 


• 1, 0976 


. 65 


• 23 • - 


.31 


•-4.83 


» . 0441 


•1.0143 


.72 


• 33 • - 


.14 


'-4.46 


• .0196 


' .6373 


.79 


' 35 1 - 


.07 


•-2.45 


• . 0049 


• .1715 


. 86 


» 15 • - 


. 


»- 


' 


1 


.93 


• 33 ' 


07 


' 1.61 


' . 0049 


' .1037 


1.00 


' 15 » 


14 


• 3.10 


• .0196 


• .3940 


1.07 


• 11 • 


31 


' 3. 31 


• . 0441 


1 .4651 


1.14 


• 8 • 


38 


• 3. 34 


• .0784 


• . 6353 


1.31 


i 7 i 


35 


• 3.45 


• . 1225 


' . 8575 


1.38 


• 3 1 


42 


• .84 


' . 1764 


» .3538 


1. 35 


i 1 » 


49 


• .49 


' . 3181 


• . Slal 


1.42 


i ' 


56 





• . 3136 


• 


1.49 


» 1 • 


63 


' .63 


• . 3969 


• . 39o9 




' 200 • 




'13.67 




«7. 8354 




Assumed M 


ean 




"~ ' • 


86 




Correction 




"~ • 


03 




True Mean 






™ ■* # 


83 




Standard 


Deviation 


*~ • 


197 




Coefficient Variability = 


33. 72 



Weight of Straw 
(Dry Weight Grams) 
fir own Sandy Loam 

3 3 



Class 


i f 


1 D 


» DF 1 


D 


' D F 


.63 


1 

' 8 


' -.37 


1 -5.36 


.4489 


» 3.5913 


.70 


> 3 


' -.60 


1 -1.30 1 


. 3600 


• .7300 


.77 


• 7 


• -.53 1 


1 -3.71 1 


.3809 


1 1.9656 


. 84 


' 9 


1 -.46 1 


-4.14 ■ 


. 3116 


1 1.9014 


.91 


» 7 


' -.39 


1 -3.73 1 


. 1531 


' 1.0647 


.98 


i 15 


' — . 33 


-4.80 ' 


.1034 


1 1.5360 


1.05 


• 33 


1 -.35 1 


-5.50 1 


.0635 


1 1.3750 


1.13 


! 14 


1 -.18 1 


-3.53 1 


.0334 


' .4536 


1.18 


13 


' -.11 1 


-1.33 ' 


.0131 


1 .1453 


1.36 


» 15 


• -. 4 1 


- .60 1 


.0016 


• .0640 


1.33 


• 30 


1 .03 1 


. 60 • 


.0009 


1 . 001 8 


1.40 


• 13 


1 .10 ' 


1.30 ' 


.0100 


' 1.3000 


1.4? 


» 16 


' .17 1 


3. 73 1 


.0389 


• .4734 


1.54 


t 13 


1 .34 1 


3.13 ■ 


. 5076 


• .7488 


1.61 


• 6 


' .31 ' 


1.86 • 


.0961 


' .5766 


1.68 


• 11 


' .38 ' 


4.18 ' 


.1444 


• 1.5884 


1. 75 


i 13 


> .45 • 


5.40 ' 


.3035 


• 3.4300 


1.83 


• 6 


' .53 > 


3.13 1 


.3704 


1 1.6334 


1.89 


i 7 i 


' .59 • 


4.13 • 


. 3481 


• 3.4367 


1.96 


• 3 ' 


.66 ' 


1.98 • 


.4356 


• 1.3068 


3.03 


• 4 


' .73 • 


3.93 • 


. 5339 


' 3.1316 


3.10 


• 3 


• .80 « 


3.40 » 


.6400 


' 1.9300 


3.17 


' 3 < 


.87 ' 


3.61 • 


.7569 


• 3.3753 




I 3§7 < 




36.34 • 




•31.5174 



Assumed Mean =1.30 
Correction =.019 
True Mean =1. 33 

Standard Deviation =.367 
Coefficient Var iability=37. 8 



Weight of Straw 
(Dry Weight Grams) 
Gray Silt Loam 



' T q a a t 

OlaSS 


T 

r 


JJ 


JJr 


JJ 


JJ r 




o 




• -1 26 • 


3969 




An l 


\J 


» - 5B 


1 -1 68 • 


. 3136 


» QA08 


1 S4 ' 


o 


♦ - 49 


' _ C,g 1 


. 4802 






1 




1 - 42 • 


. 1764 


' 1764 


' 6ft • 


5 


' - 35 


1 -1 75 1 


3 225 


1 6125 


75 1 


o 


' - 28 


1 -2 52 1 


0784 


1 7056 


ft? • 


10 


I - 21 


• -2 10 1 


0441 


• 443 


ftQ * 


10 


1 - 14 


• -1 40 • 


0196 ' 


1 1 Q60 


q« t 

• 3D 


17 


» - 07 


i .1 iq t 


0049 


' 0ft33 


103 ' 


26 


' 


• • 


o 


1 o 


1.10 1 


21 


• .07 


• 1.47 ■ 


. 0049 1 


.1034 


1.17 » 


13 


' .14 


1 1.82 • 


.0196 ' 


.2548 


1. 24 ' 


16 


' .21 


• 3.36 ' 


. 0441 < 


.7056 


1. 31 » 


19 


• .28 


• 5.32 ' 


.0784 1 


1.4896 


1.38 ' 


15 


' .35 


•5.25 ' 


.1225 < 


1.8375 


l . 45 ' 


8 


» .42 


i % ^fi t 

* O, OO ' 


.1764 « 


1.4612 


1. OC * 


6 


« .49 




. 2401 1 


1.4406 


1. oy ' 


11 


' . 56 


' d . lto * 


.3136 1 


3.4496 


l. too ' 


2 


• .63 


• 1.26 • 


.3969 ' 


. 7938 


1 73 » 





• 


• 1 


« 





1.80 ' 


6 


• . 77 


• 4.62 • 


. 5929 « 


3.5556 




202 




' 55. .56 1 




30.0044 














Assumed. Me ax 


L = 


1.03 






Correction 




.11 






True 


Mean 




1.14 






Standard Deviation = 


.29 






Coefficient 


Var iabil ity= 


25.4 







I 










44, 










tO t 


CO | 










O . 


CD i 


to | 






1 


LO 




• t 


• 1 










j 1 


CO 1 


rv> 










LO i 


1 








■ 




•■ H 




«• - H 










^ 1 




00 | 










to | 


CO i 


03 1 








<* 


• | 


• j 


• | 






, d 






£> i 


co i 






i o 




^ I 


rH i 








J H-3 


















1 


1 


rH 1 






1 >> 




f> | 


1 


O I 






1 o) 


rO | 


• ( 


• I 


• 1 






1 rH 




CO i 


CO I 


to 1 






1 O 




03 | 




1 
























to 1 


to | 


r> I 






. o 




• | 


O | 


i 






1 crj 




O 1 




• 1 






1 rH 




CO | 


05 i 


CO i 






1 PQ 








to | 










5> 1 


O- i 










LO | 


LO i 


O 1 








rH | 


• 1 


• j 


• 1 










O 1 


O 1 


LO 1 










rH I 


rH 1 












CO I 


tO 1 


03 1 




u 






05 1 


03 | 


03 l 




o 






• I 




• I 




■p 






O 1 


CO i 


03 | 




<D 






CO 1 








a 


1 












•H 






LO i 


00 1 


LO 1 






j 




J> 1 


O 1 






^ 


1 ti 




• { 


• } 


• | 






l crj 




^* i 


oo i 


CO 1 




O 


1 o 




LO J 


rH i 








i J 


















t> 1 


P- 1 


co i 




,3 


t >■. 




CO I 


CO 1 


rH t 




+j 




tO 


• | 


• 1 


• | 




Ss 


i a 




LO l 


rH 1 


^ 1 




O 


. 




to i 


-H I 






u 


1 CO 


















O i 


^ 1 


CO 1 






i <D 




O i 


'■O | 


CO | 




<H 


i a 


03 


• i 


• 1 


• 1 




o 


i -h 




^ 1 


to 1 


1 






i 




Cv3 1 


rH i 






o 














-p 


1 d 




CO i 


CO I 


CO | 




crj 


i & 




1 


1 


05 i 




PS 


I o 


rH 


• J 


• { 


• \ 




1 u 




O 1 


O 1 


<* 1 






I PQ 




rH 1 


rH 1 


























rH 1 


t> | 


CO 1 










00 I 


^ 1 


CO I 










• i 


• | 


• 1 






1 




CO j 


r> i 


03 | 










LO | 


i 


1 






j 


















■tf 1 


£> 1 


O t 










tO i 


r> i 


O 1 










• j 


• i 


• j 






1 




rH I 


00 | 


CO | 










LO 1 


rH j 


1 






1 5 














1 




P- 1 


i> i 


O 1 






I o 




CO 1 




co i 








rO 


• | 


• | 














O i 


I 






, 




to i 


rH 1 








1 rH 






- « -i 


- IQ H 










05 | 


CO t 


rH | 






1 CO 




• J 




• | 










rH 1 


rH i 


H« i 






1 S>> 




03 1 


rH I 








i d 


















00 I 


CO 1 


CT» I 










03 | 


<.V) i 


CO | 






rH 


• | 


• 1 


• I 










O 1 


O 1 












rH | 


rH I 














<D 














CO 










o 




aS 














CD 










M 


! c 


U 


rH £ 








<D 


cr5 


o 


■r-t o 










1 <U 


e: 


CtJ U 










l M 
1 S 


n 


! — 1 O 









1 


1 






1 

1 


j 


4. S 




CD 










1 








CO 






- 


— I_ 


- h- 


- 1 






P< 


j 


03 | 




j 


1 


J 










03 j 




Ol 


Ol 


m j 






-M 












- -i 










rH j 




1 


J 








rH 




CO | 




Ol 


O i 


CO | 






•H 


j 


j 


— 




— 1— 


- -i 






O 


1 


O i 




^ 


1 








CO 


j 


03 i 






Ol 


O 1 










fx 1 


— 


— t" 


•* 1— 


- H 






4-> 


1 


■»» 1 
,-| I 




rH I 


Ol 


CO i 






PI 


1 


00 ' 


— 


- h- 


- 1- 


- 1 






CO 


j 


,_i . 

1 » 




^1 


tO| 


I 






u 


1 










- H 






CD 




rH I 




Ol 


Ol 


O 1 






<M 




CD 1 
^H 






— r» 


— H 






<M 


I 






bf 


Oi 


O i 






•rH 


1 


m i 






- <- 


- H 






■d 




rH 




Ol 


Oi 


03 , 














- i- 


- h- 


- -1 






CO 




^ 1 




C0| 


rH 1 


in i 






,a 




rH 1 






03 | 








-p 








_ l» 


- \- 


- -i 










CO | 




rH I 


rH i 


^ i 






Pi 


1 


rH , 


— 


— j— 


- r- 


- "i 






O 


1 


03 | 






tn, 


i 










rH 1 




CDl 


rHi 


CJ> | 




. ^ 


CD 


i 




- 


— j_ 


- i- 


- -n 






-P 


i 


rH I 




j 


' i 


1 




o 


CtJ 




rH 1 




Ol 


o 


O l 




■H 


T> 




I 


m 




— f~ 


— <-i 




H 






O i 




1 


I 






<D 


& 




rH I 






IS . 


to 1 




Ph 


o 






_ 




- H- 


- -H 




ctJ 








cq[" 


o>. 


CO t 




hi) 


CD 




CD i 




rHi 


I 


j 










1 






- r- 


- -t 






bD 




j 




j 


CD ( 


O 1 




rH 


Pi 


i 


CO i 




C^-| 


03 


rH | 




CD 


•H 




| 


— 




— i— 


HI 




& 






j 




CDl 








O 










rH, 




o ! 




rH 


CO 




j 


- 


•> 1— 


— r* 


— «»t 






P« 








Oil 


Ol 
















rH I 


rH I 


(D t 






oT 








_ l_ 


- r* 


- -< 




CD 






1 




J 


<ni 






rH 


CD 




in | 






rH i 


0- i 




O 


• 




1 


— 


— r" 


- r" 


*- -1 




•H 


rH 








| 








Pi 


o 








Ot 


Ol 


O 1 




0$ 


•rH 


1 rH 


1 


- 




- r* 






Ph 


§ 


1 "H 


to j 




CO, 


l 


£> | 








1 rH 


J 


— 


- r- 


- 1- 


- H 






Pi 


1 P« 






l> | 


rH i 


CD I 




o 


1 < 


03 i 




rHl 


03 i 








*s 




-i 




— f~ 


- i- 


— 1 




60 


CD 




rH i 




Ol 


O i 


rH I 




P! 


Pi 


| M — 


- -4 






- K 


- H 




•rH 






rH I 




co r 


lO 1 


O- | 




-d 






to , 




to ( 


rH I 


rH 1 




rH 


o 








- r— 


- r- 


- H 




o 






O 1 








| 




<H 


rH 




CO | 




C^- i 


to, 


rH 1 




Pi 


CD 
















{=> 


,Q 




Oi i 


















03 i 




C^l 




in i 






rj 






_ 






- i 




o 


p; 


, & 


CO | 
















1 o 


03 | 




Oi, 


to I 


0) 1 




(D 


bO 


1 rH 




m 




- *- 


- H 




-P 


Pi 


, cc? 


{> | 








rH 1 




crj 


•H 


. S 


CM | 




mi 


rH I 


rH I 








| 


m 




• r- 


- H 




o 




CD i 








O i 










03 l 




rHl 


rH i 


rH , 






CO 




j 








— i 










m i 






j 


in ( 






CD 




03 j 




I> 1 


rH 1 


rH , 






rH 


i ** » 


- H 


_ 




• h- 


- H 






rO 








| 




& i 






a 










S i 


d i 














S i 


c3 i 


O i 














ra i 


O I 


rH 1 














Oi 


rHl 










j 


1 




rHi 


| 


>> I 
















t>»l 


Tj I 








1 


1 






cri | 


P! 1 














rHl 


rH I 


3 i 














■iH| 


Ol 


CO , 














CO . 












1 








| 


a \ 








1 








Ol 


W l 














cdi 




O 1 








| 






Ml 


rH I 


U 1 














O l 




aq I 





Stooling Tendency. 



Table showing iistr ibution of giants with 


resgect to number 


of 


stools 


•Total »tii 
Soil.lJBfl iaSSSii^png^l _I_ §_ I. 


3 ' 4 »5 » 6 • 


7 


1 No. 
Slants 


Blaflk_Clay_L£am_i_234 i_Za_l_ol — I_oZ — i_ 

i iiit 


.10 I__1_I1_I_Q_I 


0- 


L229 


Brown Sandy Loam 1 380 1 37 '106 • 63 » 


13 • 3 '0 ' » 





'331 


i i i t i 

GraY_Silt_Loam_ - i_3Q4 - _l - 65 - j. - 73__l_61__^_ 









Amount of Smut 
number of plants infected 



black Clay Loam 76 
Brown Sandy Loam 30 
Gray Silt Loam 30 



Tendency to Lodge 
Black Clay Loam 70 plants. 

Brown Sandy Loam 36 plants. 

Gray Silt Loam 21 plants. 



47 



1 I 1 I 1 ! I ' 1 j 1 j 1 : j T 



T ! 



— — 



— 



:::4 



- 



- 



_ 



— 



— 



7° 



(dO 



1— 



ritttttn 



5c 



4o 



H 



ti r 



+H5 




3o 



2o 



/o 



J L 

B.CL. B .5 u. <r S t. 



■Ml 



51 




11 P 1 i 1 : 1 : 1 i 



! ■ • i 1 i 1 i 1 



•21 



Jan. II 
2 



3 



4 



A five t 
5-, 



52. 



Conclusions. 
The data leads the author to believe: 

That variation is greatest upon the soil most favorable to 
growth (Brown Fine Sandy Loam) whether judged by the standard devia- 
tion or coefficient of variability. 

That certain periods in life of the plant are more susceptible 
to external influences and consequently more variability is exhibited 

That an especially critical period in the development of the 
oat plant, as shown by the life graphs, occurs in the period from 
21-48 days. This is indicated by growth rate and also by coefficient 
of variability. 

That there is definite relation between amount of sunshine and 
growth rate. - The plants grew more with low sunshine values and less 
with high sunshine values. This seems to agree with the general 
physiological fact that plants actually grow most during the hours 
of darkness or of weak light. 

That the soil was an influential factor in determining the 
amount of stooling, it being greatest on uray Silt Loam and least 
on Black Clay Loam. 

That tendency to lodge was markedly influenced by soil type 
and that this character is dependent upon the development of root 
system and amount of brace roots, and not 30 much to strength of 
straw as is usually supposed. 

That the damage by smut was less on Black Clay Loam (about 1/2 
loss of other sorts). This resistance is traced to greater growth 
rate of plants on Black Clay Loam during the susceptible period 
(first 21 days while first sheath leaf was being formed). 

That length of coleoptile seems to be a response to soil con- 



53. 

ditions. (Held by many authors to be a light response). 

That length of panicle is the least variable of the characters 
studied. 

That the number of internodes is almost constantly 8. 



• 



54. 



-Bibliography- 



(1) AMES and BOLTZ. Relation of Phosphorus and Nitrogen in Soil 
to Composition of Wheat. Ohio. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 318. (1917) 

(2) BOUYOUCOS, GEO. Transpiration of Wheat Seedlings a3 Affected 
by Soils, Solutions of Different Strengths, Densities and by 
vafious Chemical Compounds. Am. Soc. of Agronomy, Vol.3, 

p. 130. (1911). 

(3) BREAZEEALE and LE CLERC. , Growth of Wheat Seedlings as Af- 
fected by Acid or Alkiline Conditions. Bur. Chera. U.S.D.A. 
Bui. 149. (1913) 

(4) BUFFUM, B. C. Effect of Environment on Plant Breeding. Am. 
Breeders' A330C. VI, p. 313-233. (1911) 

(5) BURGESS, J.L. Relation of Soil Type and Vegetat ion. Ann. it 
Vol.3, p. 58. (1911). » 

(6) D AVE :T PORT and RIETZ. Type and Variability in Corn. Illinois 
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 119. (1907). 

(7) DE VRIES, HUGO. Mutation Theory. Vol. I & II. (1909-10) 

(8) HARRIS, FRA3SK S. Effect of Soil Moisture, Plant Food and Age 
on Ratio of Top3 to Root 3 in Plants. Jr. Am. Soc. Agronomy, 
Vol.6, I>!o.3. (1914). 

(9) HART^LL and DAMON. The Comparative Effect of Different 
Kinds of Plants of Liming on Acid Soil. Rhode Island Agr. 
Exp. Sta. Bui. 160. (1914.) 

(10) HUMBERT, EUGENE P. A Quantitative Study of Variation, Natural 
and Iniuced,in Pure Lines of Silene noct if lora . Zeit. fur 
induktive und Ab3fcammungslehre. Bd. 4., Heft 3u.4. (1911) 

(11) LADD, E.F. Humus and Soil Nitrogen, Climatic Studies with 
Wheat, 0at3, and Corn. N. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 47. (1901) 

(12) LE CLERC and YODER . Environmental Influences on the Physi- 
cal and Chemical Characteristics of Wheat. Jr. Agr. Research 
I i\io.4, pp. 1-375. (1914). 

(13) LEIGHTY, CLYDE E. Correlation of Characters in Oats. Am. 
Bree-iers' Assoc. , Vol. 7, pp. 50-61. (1911) 

(14) LEIGHTY, CLYDE E. Effect of Differences of Environment, 
Varieties and Methods on Biometric Constants. Cornell Uni. 
Agr. Exp. Sta. Mem. iio.4. (1914). 



55. 

(15) LOVE, H. K. Studies of Variations in Plants. Cornell 
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 297. (1911). 

(16) LOVE and LEIGHTY. Variation and Correlation in Oats. Pt.I 
Studies shewing effect of Seasonal Changes on Biometric Con- 
stants. Cornell Agr. Exp. Sta. } Mem. No. 3. (1914). 

(17) LOEW, OSCAR. The Physiological Role of Mineral Nutrients in 
Plants. Bur. Plant Ind., U. S.D. A. .Bui. 45. (1903). 

(18) LY0:J, T. L. Modifications in Cereal Crops Induced by Changes 
in tneir Environment. Proc. Soc. Prom. Agr. Sci. , pp. 144- 
168. (1907). 

(19) LYON , T.L. Relation of Wheat to Climate and Soil. Am. 
Soc. of AgrQO- Vol. 1, pp. 108-135. (1910), 

(20) MC COOL, M.M. The Action of Certain Nutrients and non-Nutri- 
ent Bases on Plant Growth. Cornell Uni. Agr. Exp. Sta. 
Mem. wo. 2. (1313). 

(31) MONTGOMERY , E.G. Oats: Variety Tests, Date Sowing, Cultiva- 
tion. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 113. (1910; 

(32) MYERS, C. H. Effect of Fertility upon Variation and Correla- 
tion in Wheat. Am. Breeders' Assoc., Vol. 7. (1911). 

(23) NORTON, J. B. Notes on Breeding Oats. Am. Breeders' Assoc 
Vol. 7, pp. 280-385. (1907). 

(24) PAMMEL and CLARK . Studies in Variation of Red Clover. 
Iowa Acad. Sci. , p. 47. (1911). 

(25) REITZ and SMITH. On Measurement of Correlation with Special 
Reference to some Characters in Indian Corn. Illinois Agr, 
Exp. Sta. Bui. 148. (|5I0). 

(26) SHAW and WALTERS. A Progress Report upon Soil and Climatic 
Factors Influencing the Composition of Wheat. California 
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 216. (1911). 

(27) SHULL , G.H. Place Constants for Aster Prenanthoids. Bot. 
Gazette, Vol. 38, p. 333. (1904). 

(38) SOULE and VANATTER. Influence of Climate and Soil on Com- 
position and Milling Qualities of Winter Wheat. Tennessee 
Agr. Exp. Sta. 16, No. 4. (1903) 

(29) SPRAGG, FRANK. Effect of Selection in Pure Line Oa* Work. 

Am. Soc. Agronomy, Vol. 4, pp. 81-83. (1912). 

(30) SURFACE and BARBER. Studies on Oat Breeding, Variety Tests. 
Maine Agr. Exp. Bui. 229. (1914). 

(31) SURFACE and PEARL. Studies on Oat Breeding II. Selection 
Within Pure Lines. Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 235. (1915) 



~ 5BT" 

(32) THATCHER, R.W. Dominant and Recessive Characters in Barley 
and Oat Hybrids. Proc. Soc. Prom. Agr. Sci. , pp. 31-50.(1913) 

(33) THATCHER and ARNY. The Effect of Different Rotation Systems 
and of Fertilizers on the Protein Content of Oats. Jour. 
Am. Soc. Agronomy, Vol. 9, No. 7. (1917) 

(34) WARBURTON , C.W. Sixty-Day and Kherson Oats. U.S.D.A. 
Farmer's Bui. 395. (1910) 

(35) WARBURTON, C.W. Improvement of Oat Crop. U.S.D.A. Bur. 
Plant Ind. , Cir. 30. (1909) 

(36) WEBBER, H.J. Correlation of Characters in Plant Breeding. 
Am. Breeder's Assoc. , Vol. 3, pp. 73-83, (1906) 

(37) WILEY, H.W. Influence of Environment on the Chemical Compo- 
sition of Plants. Yearbook U.S.D.A. (1901) 

(38) WILLIAMS , C.G. Ten Years Experiments with Oats. Ohio Aa:r. 
Exp. Sta. Bui. 138. (1903) 

(39) WILLIS, Clifford. Progress in Variety Test of Oats. South 
Dakota Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 110. (1908) 

(40) WOODS, CD. Field Exp. with Oats. Maine Agr. Hxp. Sta. 
Bui. 336. (1915) 

(41) ZAVITZ, CA. Foundation Stock in Plant Breeding. Am. 
Breeder's Assoc., Vol. 5, pp. 170-171. (1909)